(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Horayos 3

HORAYOS 3-4 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for the Torah and for those who study it.



(a) In a Mishnah later, Rebbi Yehudah will rule that if seven tribes sin be'Shigegas Hora'ah, they bring seven bulls - because he holds that each tribe is called a Kahal.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - Beis-Din is not obligated to bring another Par.

(c) This forces us to consider the possibility - that the author of the first of the two Beraisos currently under discussion is not Rebbi Yehudah after all (as we assumed until now).

(d) Maybe that is why Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel establishes that Beraisa like - Rebbi Meir (and the second Beraisa like the Chachamim).

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Horu ve'Asu, Rebbi Meir Poter'. The Rabbanan rule - 'Horu ve'Asu Chayav'.

(b) 've'Asu' cannot pertain to ...

1. ... Beis-Din, because we learn from "ha'Kahal ve'Asu" - that it is the Beis-Din who issue the ruling, but the people who sin.
2. ... Rov Kahal - because then why would Rebbi Meir rule 'Patur'.
(c) We therefore think that when the Tana says "Ve'asu", he must be referring to a Yachid, and the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Yachid she'Asah ve'Hora'as Beis-Din Patur' (Rebbi Meir) or 'Chayav' (the Rabbanan).

(d) Rav Papa refutes this proof however. In his opinion, even the Rabbanan agree that 'Yachid she'Asah be'Hora'as Beis-Din Patur', and the Mishnah is speaking about 'Rov Kahal' - which is only a 'Rov' because Beis-Din sinned too, and Rebbi Meir only holds Patur because he maintains Beis-Din cannot be included among the sinners, even to turn a minority into a majority.

(a) Alternatively, we establish the case by Rov Kahal, and the Rabbanan who say 'Chayav' are Rebbi Shimon, who hold that by Shigegas Hora'as, the Kahal is obligated to bring a Par as well as Beis-Din. Rebbi Meir therefore holds - that it is only the Beis-Din who brings a Chatas, and not the Kahal.

(b) Another alternative is when a tribe followed the ruling of its Beis-Din, and the Chachamim is alias Rebbi Yehudah - who says that such a case has the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah ...

(c) ... whereas according to Rebbi Meir - it is only the rulings of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol that are subject to the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah.

(a) Finally, we suggest that the Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Amar Rebbi Meir - who rules that six tribes comprising the majority of K'lal Yisrael that sinned - are subject to the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah ...

(b) And the same applies - to seven tribes which comprise the minority.

(c) Rebbi Meir will hold - that 'Rov Kahal' requires at least seven tribes that also comprise the majority of K'lal Yisrael.

(d) Based on the Pasuk "Va'ya'as Sh'lomoh ba'Eis ha'Hi es ha'Chag ve'Chol Yisrael Imo *Kehal Gadol mi'Lavo Chamas ad Nachal Mitzrayim* ... ", Rav Asi comments - that Rov Kahal includes only those who live within the borders of Eretz Yisrael (but not those who live north of Chamas, or south of the Nile).

(a) In the Mishnah in the third Perek the Tana Kama holds that a Kohen Mashu'ach or a Nasi who sin prior to his appointment, brings a 'Kisbah O Se'irah, even if he only became aware of the sin afterwards. According to Rebbi Shimon - he brings a Par.

(b) This is due to the fact - that the Rabbanan go after the time of the sin, whereas Rebbi Shimon goes after the time that he becomes aware that he sinned.

(c) And the same Machlokes applies in our case - inasmuch as in a case where the Rov Kahal sinned, and by the time they realized that they had, some of them had died, leaving them in the minority, they will bring a Par according to the Rabbanan, and a Kisbah O Se'irah, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(a) We ask whether Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan will also argue in the reverse case (where a minority of the Kahal sinned, only later they became a majority - which is possible where some of those who did not sin died). According to Rebbi Shimon, they would be obligated to bring a Par, whereas according to the Rabbanan, they would be Patur.

(b) The basis of the She'eilah (the reason why we might think that they remain Patur even according to Rebbi Shimon) is - because, as opposed to the previous case, at the time when the Miy'ut Kahal sinned, they were not Chayav at all (even according to Rebbi Shimon [see also Tosfos DH Mu'atin').

(c) We conclude - that Rebbi Shimon only speaks in a case where both the sin and the knowledge of the sin took place be'Chiyuv, but where the sin took place without any Chiyuv, they are Patur.

(d) And, to prove it, we conclude 'de'im-Kein, Laysi ke'de'Hashta' - meaning that if Rebbi Shimon did not require both the sin and the knowledge be'Chiyuv, why does he concede that, in a case where the Kohen Gadol only became aware of his sin after his appointment, he is Patur?

(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case where Beis-Din ruled twice that Cheilev was permitted, and each time a Miy'ut Kahal followed their ruling. They might not be Chayav - because there were two different 'Yedi'os'.

(b) Assuming that the two Miy'utim do combine (seeing as they committed the same sin), they might not however do so, in a similar case, only where Beis-Din first permitted the Cheilev on the stomach, and then the Cheilev on the intestines - because the respective Isurim stem from two different Pesukim.

(c) On the assumption that they combine there as well, we ask whether a Miy'ut Kahal who followed Beis-Din's ruling permitting Cheilev, and another Miy'ut Kahal who followed their ruling permitting blood, will combine, too.
We think that they ...

1. ... might not (in spite of the fact that they are both Chayav Kareis) - because the Isurim are inherently different, inasmuch as the Cheilev of a Chayah is permitted, whereas the blood of a Chayah is not.
2. ... might nevertheless combine - because if the same Kahal were to eat either Cheilev or Dam be'Shigegas Ma'aseh, they would bring the same Chatas.
(d) And assuming that even they combine, we suggest that a Miy'ut Kahal who followed their ruling permitting blood, and a Miy'ut Kahal who followed their ruling permitting Avodas-Kochavim will also combine (even though they require different Korbanos [Kisbah O Se'irah and Se'irah only respectively], as well as being different Isurin) - because they are both Chayav Kareis.

(e) The outcome of these She'eilos and of the next one is - Teiku.

(a) We then ask, assuming that 'Cheilev ve'Cheilev' combine, whether they will combine even if the two rulings were issued by two consecutive Batei-Din. This She'eilah is not applicable - according to those who hold that it is the Beis-Din who bring the Par (and not the Kahal).

(b) They might not combine however - because, even though the Kahal is one and the same, the Yedi'ah of Beis-Din (an intrinsic requirement towards the Chiyuv) is not.




(a) Rebbi Yonasan learned from the Pasuk "ve'Im *Kol Adas Yisrael* Yishgu" - that even if a hundred Dayanim were sitting in Beis-Din (see Chok Nasan), they all had to agree (to the erroneous ruling) before they would be Chayav.

(b) Based on the principle 'Rubo ke'Kulo', Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua proves it from the Lashon of the Pasuk "Kol Adas Yisrael" - which implies that the decision is unanimous (and that the majority will not suffice, as it does in other cases).

(c) Our Mishnah obligates member of Beis-Din or a Talmid who knows that Beis-Din erred, to bring a Korban, because he did not rely on Beis-Din's ruling - implying that anybody else (who does rely on Beis-Din) is Patur, a Kashya on Rebbi Yonasan, according to whom this is not considered Shigegas Hora'ah (since one of the Dayan disagreed with the ruling [and anybody who subsequently sinned ought to be Chayav]).

(d) To answer the Kashya, we establish the Mishnah - when the Dayan who disagreed with then in his heart, nevertheless nodded his head in agreement with their ruling.

(a) In a case where one member of Beis-Din informed the others that they had erred, the next Mishnah will absolve Beis-Din from a Korban (because that is not a proper ruling.

(b) This implies that if he had remained silent, they would be have been Chayav (even though one of the Dayanim does not agree with their ruling). Rebbi Yonasan will refute the proof from there that not all members of Beis-Din need to rule, to be considered 'Shigegas Hora'ah' - by once again establishing the Mishnah, when the Dayan nodded his head in agreement with their ruling.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok stated the principle - that 'Beis-Din does not issue a decree on the community unless the majority can live with it'.

(b) Rav Ada bar Aba learns this from the Pasuk "bi'Me'eirah Atem Ne'arim, ve'Osi Atem Kov'im ha'Goy Kulo" which means that Beis-Din issued would issue a decree with a curse against the transgressor, and the people robbed Hashem (by benefiting from the curses), but that this was only because the whole of (i.e. the majority of) the community accepted those decrees.

(c) Rav Mesharshaya finally proves Rebbi Yonasan wrong from here - seeing as the Torah uses the expression ''ha'Goy Kulo", yet we interpret it to mean the majority.

(d) So we interpret "Kol Adas Yisrael" in the Pasuk in Vayikra to mean - that all seventy-one members of the Sanhedrin must be in attendance (without necessarily agreeing with the majority ruling) before it can be considered a Shigegas Hora'ah.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that if ten people sit to judge, they are all responsible for the outcome (and punishable should they err). This in itself is obvious, but what he is coming to teach us is - that even if among them is a Talmid sitting in front of his Rebbe (who is not allowed to remain silent should he perceive that his Rebbe is making a mistake).

(b) Rav Huna would take ten Talmidei-Chachamim with him when he went to Beis-Din to adjudicate - so that each one should receive only 'sawdust from the beam' (i.e. they should share the blame).

(c) Rav Ashi did a similar thing. When people brought Safek T'reifos before him to inspect - he would call ten of the town's butchers.

(a) If Beis-Din erred and retracted, but meanwhile, a Yachid acted on their ruling, Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah exempts him from a Korban. How can someone who sinned after the Tzibur realized their mistake and are already preparing to atone for it, be included in their Korban (the Par He'elam Davar) ...

(b) ... even though they had not yet brought it.

(c) Rebbi Elazar rules 'Safek' - by which he means that since it is a Safek whether he is Chayav Chatas or Patur, he brings an Asham Taluy.

(d) Rebbi Elazar will agree that he is Patur from a Korban however - in the event that he was overseas when the error became known.

(a) Rebbi Akiva explained to ben Azai the difference between a Yachid who was sitting at home and one who went overseas - in that the former should have heard about the error, whereas the latter could not have been expected to.

(b) Our Mishnah - exempts Beis-Din who erred in saying that there is no Isur of Nidah, Shabbos or Avodas-Kochavim min ha'Torah from bringing a Korban.

(c) The example they give of 'Levatel Miktzas' regarding ...

1. ... Nidah is - when they rule that someone who had relations with a 'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' (a woman who saw blood once or twice during the days of Zivus) is exempt from bringing a Chatas.
2. ... Shabbos is - when they rule that someone who carries from one Reshus to another is exempt from a Chatas.
3. ... Avodas-Kochavim is - when they rule that someone who prostrates himself before an Avodah-Zarah is exempt from bringing a Chatas.
(d) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "Ve'ne'elam Davar" - that Beis-Din are Chayav only if they err in a detail of a major Isur, but not if they permit the entire Isur (as we just explained).
(a) According to the first Lashon of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Rebbi Shimon exempts the Yachid from a Korban because he acted with the sanction of Beis-Din. In the second Lashon, he ascribes it to the fact - that any ruling that Beis-Din issue publicly, transforms the one who follows it from a Meizid to a Shogeg.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the Par of the Tzibur was purchased with money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah (part of the funds donated annually by the people). Rebbi Shimon says - that the money had to be collected from every member of the Kahal.

(c) The problem this creates with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (in Rebbi Shimon) is - that seeing as the Yachid in question had to pay towards the purchase of the Par He'elam Davar, how can Rebbi Shimon still consider him Taluy be'Da'as Atzmo when he subsequently sinned?

(d) We answer this Kashya in three ways. 1. that they claimed from him S'tam (without explaining what the money was for); 2. that he was out of town when the Gaba'im claimed from all the residents - 3. that Rav Yehudah Amar Rav follows the opinion of another Beraisa, which switches the two opinions, and Rebbi Yehudah is the one who holds that the money to pay for the Par was paid for by the Kahal. According to Rebbi Shimon, it came out of Terumas ha'Lishkah.

(a) Our Mishnah cited the opinions of Rebbi Shimon, who exempts the Yachid (who acted on the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted) from a Korban, and Rebbi Elazar, who holds 'Safek'. The Beraisa cites two additional opinions, one of them, Rebbi Meir, who says - Chayav.

(b) They cite Sumchus who says 'Taluy'. To distinguish between Sumchus and Rebbi Elazar. Rebbi Yochanan explains this to mean - that his Chiyuv hangs in abeyance, but he does not bring a Korban (Asham Taluy).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,